Math and Science Could Be Big Losers Under New Law

Math and science teachers will lose their designated federal funding
for professional development because the new K-12 education act created
a block grant, in part, with money from a 15-year-old program aimed at
improving the skills of such educators.

The changes "virtually eliminate dedicated federal funding for K-12
math and science education," advocates for math and science teachers
declared in a last- minute plea for help in lobbying for a new
mathematics and science program.

In the end, the effort late last year failed to change that
provision of the "No Child Left Behind" Act signed last week by
President Bush. Under the new law, which reauthorizes the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, math and science teachers will have to
compete for professional-development aid from the new $2.85 billion
block grant, pitting them against teachers of other subjects and
efforts to reduce class sizes.

To replace the $485 million Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional
Development Program, which guaranteed a big chunk of the program's
money to math and science teachers, Congress established a new pot for
demonstration grants to enhance those teachers' skills. But, to the
dismay of many lobbyists, Congress fell far short by appropriating only
$12.5 million of the $450 million math and science advocates had sought
and at one time appeared in line to get.

"No Child Left Behind is well-funded, with
one exception," said Linda P. Rosen, the senior vice president for
education at the National Alliance of Business, a Washington-based
group that lobbied for the new math and science program. "Twelve and a
half million dollars is not going to go very far."

Federal officials, however, say they expect that districts will
continue to pay for math and science professional development with
block grant money, because local education leaders know that teachers'
skills are lacking most in those subjects.

"Local school districts will use [block grant] money for math and
science, whether or not someone says they have to spend it on math and
science," said Susan K. Sclafani, a counselor to Secretary of Education
Rod Paige. "Schools are going to do it because it's the right thing to
do."

But math, and especially science, promoters are doubtful that their
teachers will do as well as they did when the Eisenhower professional-
development program reserved at least $250 million for them.

"From what we've seen, a lot of money is going to reading and math
programs," said Jodi L. Peterson, the director of legislative affairs
for the National Science Teachers Association, a 60,000-member group
based in Arlington, Va. "We're seeing science squeezed out in
elementary schools."

Funding Mix- Up

Mathematics and science advocates worked throughout 2001 to avoid
being in that position.

From the start of last year's debate on the education bill, they
endorsed President Bush's proposal to put the Eisenhower program into
the block grant and replace it with new math and science
partnerships.

The new program will require a pairing of colleges and school
districts to offer sustained professional development for teachers.

The program is designed to solve one of the weaknesses of the
Eisenhower program, which critics and supporters alike said too often
provided money for short-term workshops that had little impact on
classroom practice.

Math and science supporters believed that the new partnerships would
be financed at $450 million.

The House version of the ESEA bill would have set aside that amount
from the block grant and dedicated it to the math and science
partnerships. In contrast, the Senate version separated the math and
science partnerships from the block grant, though it authorized
spending of up to $900 million on the partnerships.

When the House-Senate conference committee
separated the partnerships from the block grant, however, the
appropriators didn't take money out of the block grant to pay for the
math and science program. And congressional appropriators ended up
giving it $12.5 million, a small fraction of what had been anticipated,
much less provided in the past.

"Right out of the blue, it caught us by surprise," said Tom
Lindsley, a lobbyist for the Business Coalition for Excellence in
Education, a group of 80 companies that pushed for the new
partnerships.

Without a significant amount set aside for the new partnerships,
mathematics and science teachers will compete with others.

Yet math and science teachers are more likely than their colleagues
to be teaching a subject they hadn't majored in as college students,
according to James M. Rubillo, the executive director of the
100,000-member National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. "From
elementary schools on," he said, "teachers have more training in
reading and other subjects than math and science."

But Ms. Sclafani noted that history suggests that math and science
teachers will fare well.

When Congress previously reauthorized the ESEA in 1994, it took away
math and science teachers' exclusive rights to Eisenhower funds. Still,
by last year, about $375 million of the program's $485 million was
awarded to math and science projects.

What's more, congressional appropriators included nonbinding report
language to "strongly urge" that the block grant money keep funding for
math and science teachers at current levels. The Education Department
plans to pass the word to districts through regulations, Ms. Sclafani
said.

NSF's New Role

In addition, the Education Department is working closely with the
National Science Foundation to ensure that the two agencies' math and
science programs don't overlap, Ms. Sclafani said.

Congress appropriated $160 million for a revamped National Science
Foundation program. The Math/Science Partnerships will solicit grant
applications from teams that include universities and school districts.
The teams will promise to work on upgrading the skills of math and
science teachers who haven't been trained to teach the subjects.
Recipients also will need to work toward raising the number of high
school students taking high-level math and science courses, said Judith
A. Ramaley, the NSF's assistant director for education and human
resources.

Vol. 21, Issue 18, Pages 20, 23

Published in Print: January 16, 2002, as Math and Science Could Be Big Losers Under New Law

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.